Latest news with #Democrat-appointed
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Democratic FTC Commissioner Quits—But That Doesn't Mean He's Dropping His Lawsuit
Alvaro Bedoya, former commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), formally resigned on Monday after he and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the other Democrat-appointed commissioner, were fired by President Donald Trump in March. Bedoya and Slaughter have challenged the president in court, with Slaughter arguing that the firings violated "the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent." Although Bedoya and Slaughter will continue pursuing their legal challenge to the firings, Bedoya's pressured resignation represents a major blow to the security of independent agency executives. The Supreme Court precedent invoked by Bedoya and Slaughter is Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. (1935), which was prompted by then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's attempted firing of FTC Commissioner William E. Humphrey, who former President Herbert Hoover had appointed to serve a second, seven-year term on the commission in 1931. The Court unanimously ruled against Roosevelt, finding that the president is not free to fire officers of those "quasi legislative or quasi judicial agencies" created by Congress without cause. The president's ability to fire such officers at will "threatens the independence of a commission…as an agency of the legislative and judicial departments," thereby undermining the separation of powers codified in the Constitution. (The existence of executive agencies that simultaneously wield legislative and judicial powers is itself a blatant violation of this principle.) On Monday, Bedoya filed a supplemental declaration to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the court hearing his and Slaughter's case against the Trump administration) providing his reasons for formally resigning. Bedoya explained that he has been denied his wages as FTC commissioner following his firing and that, to comply with rules and regulations, he has not accepted other employment opportunities. Since Bedoya can "no longer afford to go without any source of income for [his] family," he resigned "out of an abundance" to pursue paid employment outside the agency. Former FTC Chair Lina Khan credited Bedoya with reviving the Robinson-Patman Act, which outlaws price discrimination, and thanked him for "his remarkable tenure" as an FTC commissioner and "his outstanding public service." She described Bedoya's resignation as "a huge loss." FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak—both of whom are named as defendants in Bedoya and Slaughter's lawsuit—have not yet spoken publicly about Bedoya's resignation, nor has the more recently appointed commissioner, Mark Meador. The partisan divisions between FTC commissioners belie claims of the very independence that the Supreme Court regarded as "essential [so] that the commission should not be open to the suspicion of partisan direction" in Humphrey's Executor. Regardless of the partisanship of the FTC and the constitutionality of Humphrey's Executor, the now-resigned commissioner is "still suing the President! Not dropping out of the lawsuit," Bedoya emphasized on X. The post Democratic FTC Commissioner Quits—But That Doesn't Mean He's Dropping His Lawsuit appeared first on
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
MAGA Turns On Amy Coney Barrett After She Sides With Liberal Justices Against Trump
Right-wing influencers are turning against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett after she voted against President Donald Trump's use of the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants. The conservative majority Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of the Trump administration on Monday, allowing it to enforce the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, but limited its authority to allow the accused 'reasonable time' to go to court and challenge the case against them. Barrett, who Trump appointed in 2020, joined Democrat-appointed Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in dissenting against the president's use of the act. Sotomayor called the majority decision 'suspect,' writing in the principal dissent that it ignored 'the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the Government's attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.' Though Barrett voted with the liberal justices, she only joined some portions of the dissent. Her name is included in a section that argues that someone subject to deportation must be notified, and one that criticizes the Supreme Court for hearing Trump's case as an emergency and overruling lower courts that had halted certain deportations. Barrett's vote has made her the target of attacks from many right-wing influencers on X, some of whom even went after her two adopted Black children. Conservative pundit and former Trump supporter Ann Coulter posted a photo showing the justice with her children and wrote, 'Who could've seen that coming?' Sam Parker, a MAGA Republican who ran for Senate in Utah in 2018, also posted a photo of Barrett's family, with the caption 'Who could have predicted Amy Coney Barrett would sell out her own people? If only there had been a sign.' Other conservative commentators joined the conversation, including Catturd — a MAGA personality with 3.6 million X followers — who called Barrett 'an absolute disgusting fraud.' 'Trump appointed her and gave her her dream job and complimented her and praised her - and she's been an ungrateful, backstabbing POS since day one,' the account wrote. And after Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) called Barrett's dissent 'disappointing,' X owner and Trump adviser Elon Musk weighed in with his own opinion, writing, 'Suicidal empathy is a civilizational risk.' Ketanji Brown Jackson Issues Seething Dissent To Supreme Court's Hasty Migrant Ruling Supreme Court Lifts Order Blocking Deportations Under 18th Century Wartime Law Trump Dealt Another Legal Setback Over His Legally Dubious Firings
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Loses Bid to Pause Court Ruling on Spending Freeze
(Bloomberg) -- A court order blocking President Donald Trump's freeze on trillions of dollars in spending for grants, loans and other financial assistance will remain in place while the government challenges the ruling, an appeals court said. They Built a Secret Apartment in a Mall. Now the Mall Is Dying. Why Did the Government Declare War on My Adorable Tiny Truck? How SUVs Are Making Traffic Worse Trump Slashed International Aid. Geneva Is Feeling the Impact. Affordable Housing Developers Stalled by Blocked Federal Funds Trump's request to stay a lower court injunction was denied Wednesday by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the latest setback for the president in lawsuits over the chaotic and unprecedented spending freeze imposed by the White House in January. Payments must continue while the legal fight proceeds toward a potential trial, likely months away. The panel of three Democrat-appointed judges rejected the government's argument that the court cannot take into account the harm caused to the states' residents. Even if it did so, the panel held, the potential harm to the states themselves would be significant. 'These harms included the obligation of new debt; the inability to pay existing debt; impediments to planning, hiring, and operations; and disruptions to research projects by state universities,' the panel said. The nationwide preliminary injunction was issued March 6 by Chief US District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island. The judge said the spending freeze had 'catastrophic consequences' that were still rippling through the country, and that a court order was necessary to keep the funds flowing. A similar nationwide injunction against the spending freeze was also handed down in a parallel suit filed by a group of nonprofit organizations in federal court in Washington. Trump is also appealing that decision. The suits in Rhode Island and Washington were filed in response to a January memo by the White House Office of Management and Budget that paused all federal spending on grants, loans and other payments that cover a vast array of expenditures for nonprofits and states. The memo said the freeze was required under provisions of Trump's executive orders on spending. OMB quickly withdrew the memo in response to the litigation. But McConnell said in an earlier ruling that the withdrawal appeared to be an effort to deprive the courts of a chance to block it, and that the spending freeze remained in effect. Only a court order could assure the spending freeze is blocked, the judge held. The states said in a filing with the appeals court that the Trump administration was likely to freeze federal funds once again if the stay was granted. The states said they presented evidence that 'categorical freezes' on some funds remained in effect in violation of the court's earlier order. In the Washington case, US District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled on Feb. 25 that the nonprofit groups that sued showed they faced the risk of 'economically catastrophic' effects without the block. The Trump administration 'cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case,' the judge wrote at the time. The case is New York v. Trump, 25-cv-39, US District Court, District of Rhode Island (Providence). (Updates with details from ruling, background on case.) Business Schools Are Back Google Is Searching for an Answer to ChatGPT The Richest Americans Kept the Economy Booming. What Happens When They Stop Spending? A New 'China Shock' Is Destroying Jobs Around the World How TD Became America's Most Convenient Bank for Money Launderers ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legal expert accuses 'judge shopping' Democrats of manipulating courts to derail Trump agenda
Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called out Democrats and liberal groups for "judge shopping" – rushing cases to friendly courts to guarantee anti-Trump rulings in a move he considers a blatant abuse of the legal system. "[It's] completely unethical, and many of these restraining orders have one common denominator – they're ordered by Democrat-appointed judges exceeding their authority, contorting the law to do it," Jarrett said Monday. The accusation comes on the heels of D.C.-based Judge James Boasberg issuing an order to immediately halt the Trump administration's planned deportations of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador via the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law. Justice Department Tells Federal Judge It Might Invoke State Secrets Act On High-profile Deportation Case The Trump administration attempted to invoke the act to deport alleged violent criminals, including members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang that has infiltrated the U.S., taking over apartment complexes, killing Americans and committing other violent crimes. Jarrett accused Democrats of "usurping the power of the president" and "violating the separation of powers" by seeking out progressive judges who will place a roadblock in the executive branch's path, thereby halting President Donald Trump's agenda in its tracks. Read On The Fox News App "It's got to stop," he continued. Judicial Halt Of Deportation Flights Puts Us Foreign Policy At Risk, Career State Dept Official Claims "Congress can act. Senator [Josh] Hawley is prepared to introduce a bill to limit the authority of these judges, because Congress created the court system and the judges, and they can limit and circumscribe their authority." The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments Monday on whether the lower court can properly address the administration's actions regarding the deportation flights. Jarrett told "Fox & Friends" that Boasberg's temporary restraining order defies Supreme Court precedent established upon review of President Harry Truman's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act shortly after World War II. "The High Court said that not only is the act constitutional under the law of the land, it is not subject to judicial review by any judge, so when a president invokes it, no judge, no court can ever intervene, not even the Supreme Court, because Congress gave the president the exclusive power that is purely political to make decisions on national security and foreign policy," he said. Fox News' Haley Chi-Sing contributed to this article source: Legal expert accuses 'judge shopping' Democrats of manipulating courts to derail Trump agenda
Fox News
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Legal expert accuses 'judge shopping' Democrats of manipulating courts to derail Trump agenda
Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called out Democrats and liberal groups for "judge shopping" – rushing cases to friendly courts to guarantee anti-Trump rulings in a move he considers a blatant abuse of the legal system. "[It's] completely unethical, and many of these restraining orders have one common denominator – they're ordered by Democrat-appointed judges exceeding their authority, contorting the law to do it," Jarrett said Monday. The accusation comes on the heels of D.C.-based Judge James Boasberg issuing an order to immediately halt the Trump administration's planned deportations of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador via the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law. The Trump administration attempted to invoke the act to deport alleged violent criminals, including members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang that has infiltrated the U.S., taking over apartment complexes, killing Americans and committing other violent crimes. Jarrett accused Democrats of "usurping the power of the president" and "violating the separation of powers" by seeking out progressive judges who will place a roadblock in the executive branch's path, thereby halting President Donald Trump's agenda in its tracks. "It's got to stop," he continued. "Congress can act. Senator [Josh] Hawley is prepared to introduce a bill to limit the authority of these judges, because Congress created the court system and the judges, and they can limit and circumscribe their authority." The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments Monday on whether the lower court can properly address the administration's actions regarding the deportation flights. Jarrett told "Fox & Friends" that Boasberg's temporary restraining order defies Supreme Court precedent established upon review of President Harry Truman's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act shortly after World War II. "The High Court said that not only is the act constitutional under the law of the land, it is not subject to judicial review by any judge, so when a president invokes it, no judge, no court can ever intervene, not even the Supreme Court, because Congress gave the president the exclusive power that is purely political to make decisions on national security and foreign policy," he said.
